DefenseReview received an interesting CNN video clip (link below) yesterday from the good folks at the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), yesterday, showing SAF president Alan Gottlieb (Alan M. Gottlieb) going up against the combined brain trust–and we use that term loosely–of CNN news anchor/commentator/newly-appointed hatchet man Rick Sanchez and Media Matters’ “Senior Fellow” (whatever that means) Eric Boehlert, after Mr. Sanchez went on a rather lengthy vitriolic and downright hostile diatribe against Fox News Channel (FNC) and Fox News commentators Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Mr. Sanchez accused the Fox News, Mr. Beck, and Mr. Hannity of “garden-variety fear and hate mongering night-in and night-out” and at least partially causing the recent spate of active-shooter a.k.a. “mass shooting” a.k.a. spree-killer situations by “stirring the pot” and making people “apoplectic” and causing them to “scarf up guns and ammunition at an alarming rate.” Uh, quick question there, Rick? What constitutes an alarming rate? What’s an acceptable rate, in your opinion? I ask you this just in case all 57 of your viewers are interested.

Sanchez actually called all the law-abiding American citizens who are currently purchasing firearms and ammunition as an insurance policy against potential new gun control laws, civil unrest, and encroaching socialism “alarmists”, as if these gun buyers don’t actually have a legitimate reason to be alarmed by the Obama administration’s and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent pro-gun-control/anti-Second-Amendment statements and economic policies, which do seem just a wee bit socialistic. He also took umbrage at Sean Hannity calling, according to Sanchez, “the nation’s first minority…minority [racism strongly implied, here, by Sanchez] President”, Barack Obama, a socialist, as if President Obama has never exhibited any socialist tendencies and Mr. Hannity is the only news commentator/political analyst to do so. Really, Mr. Sanchez? I mean, really. Wow.

The CNN video clip was simultaneously disturbing and entertaining. Let’s start with the disturbing part: It was disturbing because as Mr. Sanchez went ass-over-teakettle off the journalistic rails, he made seemingly self-delusional or ignorant (at best) and possibly deliberately deceitful (at worst) statements about the supposed lack of evidence of President Obama’s rather obvious hostility toward the Second Amendment–both its purpose and spirit–even though Mr. Obama’s hostility against the Second Amendment and private firearms ownership is well-evidenced and documented by his entire legislative record and by very public multiple statements made recently by his Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder (Eric Himpton Holder, Jr.), who just weeks ago attempted to use the Mexican drug war as an excuse to push a new PERMANENT “assault weapons” ban (more accurately a tactical/defensive firearms ban, specifically a tactical/defensive rifle/carbine ban) and other gun control laws against law-abiding U.S. citizens (see video clip links below).

Mr. Sanchez’s own network, CNN, has actually reported on some of Mr. Holder’s recent pro-gun-control statements! So, Mr. Sanchez A) wasn’t cognizant of it, B) was in denial of it, or C) was being outright deceitful to his viewers. Logic dictates that it simply has to be one of those three, because I refuse to believe that Mr. Sanchez is abjectly stupid.

Understand that the only way Mr. Holder could make these statements about banning tactical/defensive firearms–or what he and President Obama call “assault weapons”–and pushing for other gun control laws is if he got the go-ahead, i.e. express permission and/or direction, by his boss, President Obama, to do so. The president had to have given Mr. Holder permission and/or direction to “test the waters” by floating the idea of permanently reinstating a tactical/defensive firearm ban–one that had no provable positive anti-crime effect the first time around–in front of the American public, the excuse being that it will somehow help to solve a foreign country’s (Mexico’s) lawlessness and corruption.

Even if Mr. Holder can prove that the majority of the Mexican drug cartel’s firearms were purchased in U.S. gun stores, which he’s so far been unable to do, it’s irrelevant. He can’t infringe on the American people’s right to arm themselves with tactical firearms designed specifically for fighting, since military-grade tactical firearms are specifically what the Second Amendment was designed to protect. After-all, the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the free law-abiding citizens of the United States have access to small arms that are commensurate technologically and and capability-wise with what agents of the government, i.e. U.S. military infantrymen and law enforcement personnel, have at their respective disposals, so said citizens can effectively fight said agents of the government, if and when that government becomes tyrannical. That’s the citizenry’s ultimate and final check and balance against the government. The bottom line is that the Second Amendment was written and put into the Bill of Rights in order to protect the right of the people to own and keep tactical firearms designed specifically for fighting other human beings. It has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or sporting firearms.

Even if the guns flowing into Mexico are indeed U.S.-sold (civilian) semi-auto tactical firearms as Mr. Holder and the Mexican government contend, then that’s all the more reason to properly secure the U.S./Mexican border from both sides using high-tech surveillance equipment, fences, walls, border security personnel, military personnel, and whatever else the U.S. and Mexican governments can devise. They just can’t legally inhibit the availability of tactical firearms and/or ammunition to the citizens of the United States. Any law that infringes on our ability to obtain military-grade tactical firearms (the type of firearms that are necessary for an armed citizenry to be able to effectively fight against a tyrannical government’s armed military and police forces) and/or ammunition is, by definition, in direct violation of the Second Amendment, and thus violates the Constitution. Period. Now, if President Obama and AG Holder want to try to repeal the Second Amendment, well then…oh yeah, that’s right, the Second Amendment merely inumerates and guarantees us in writing our God-given right to bear arms, it doesn’t grant it. So, even if the Obama administration and the Democrat Congressional leadership were to somehow manage to repeal it, said God-given right wouldn’t cease to exist. It would still be there.

Oh, and here’s a question: Why is Mexico’s murder rate so much higher than ours, when guns are much more plentiful and available here in the U.S. than in Mexico? Could it be a double-whammy social problem/law enforcement problem down there rather than a U.S. civilian gun problem, perhaps? I mean, if it’s a gun-availability problem, shouldn’t the murder rate be significantly higher here in the U.S., rather than the other way around, since it’s so much easier for U.S. residents to obtain firearms?

Fortunately, after AG Holder made his latest public statement about the Obama administration’s desire to reinstitute the “assault weapons” ban permanently and pass additional gun control laws as well, 65 Democrat congressmen immediately came to the defense of the 2nd Amendment (and thus freedom) and voiced their opposition to President Obama and AG Holder in an open letter, basically urging the Obama administration through Mr. Holder to cease and desist its efforts to disarm law-abiding American citizens posthaste. And, the amazing thing is, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were intelligent enough politically to back them (the 65 Democrat congressmen) up! Pelosi stated that we should concentrate on enforcing the laws that are currently on the books rather than pass a new tactical firearm ban or other gun control laws, even though Ms. Pelosi is still pushing for firearm registration a.k.a. gun registration, which is historically proven to be the primary step toward total firearm confiscation and ultimately tyranny and mass murder (and torture), each time, every time, throughout history.

Now for the entertaining part of the video clip, courtesy of the aforementioned Mr. Gottlieb, who used his factual and historical knowledge, intelligence, and quick wit to very effectively counterpunch and beat Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Boehlert in their own venue: Gottlieb brought up Obama’s legislative record of voting for gun control laws and against private firearms ownership, Eric Holder’s recent public statements, and a recent Pew Research Center survey concluding that President Obama is the most polarizing U.S. president in the modern era. He also effectively dispelled Mr. Boehlert’s characterizing all the law-abiding citizens currently purchasing firearms as a safeguard against future gun-control legislation and an increasingly socialist state as being part of a “militia movement”. He reminded Mr. Beohlert that there are currently approximately 90 million law-abiding gun owners in this country.

However, the highlight of the interview/debate came at the very end, when Gottlieb quickly and deftly turned Sanchez’s own argument about news networks sewing discontent and fear among the proletariat (by constantly attacking politicians and their agendas) around on him by pointing to CNN’s and MSNBC’s constant attacks on President Bush (President George W. Bush, 43) and his policies while he was in office. In other words, he nailed CNN and MSNBC for doing against Bush the very thing that Sanchez was now accusing Fox News of doing. And, the kicker is, Gottlieb effectively got in the last word by getting lucky with the timing of the segment, since Sanchez had to end it and cut to a commercial almost as soon as Gottlieb stopped talking. This didn’t leave Sanchez enough time to think up an effective retort to Gottlieb’s last punch at CNN and MSNBC, so Sanchez ended up ceding the point to Gottlieb, saying “Aw’right, well, we’ll leave it at that, I suppose that’s fair…” It was a true thing of beauty, and you have to watch it to fully appreciate it.

So, here’s the Rick Sanchez vs. Alan Gottlieb debate video that all the fuss is about:

Score one for the American people. Thank you, Mr. Gottlieb. You’re a true patriot.

Editor’s Note on What Gun Control is Really About(and What the Government Won’t Tell You): “Gun control” laws are really people control laws, since they’re used to control us, the people, not guns. When the Government (any government) says it wants to control what firearms you own, or keep you from owning certain types of firearms, or keep you from owning firearms altogether, what it’s really saying is that it doesn’t trust you, the individual (law-abiding) citizen, with these dangerous weapons (dangerous to them), so you need to be controlled. The Government is basically saying: “Think of yourself as a dangerous, impetuous child that’s not adequately equipped to be able to own and keep these dangerous weapons intelligently and responsibly. Only we the Government, the parent in this relationship, can be trusted with them, because we, unlike you, are all those things you are not. Unlike you, we are mature adults. We have more experience and possess greater intelligence than you. We are more just, more trustworthy, and more responsible than you are…because we’re the Government. And, quite frankly, we really don’t want to have to worry about all of you, our citizens, our dangerous, impetuous children, being armed and therefore capable of fighting and resisting us if and when we need to control you. We don’t want to have to worry about you resisting and overthrowing us if and when we need to dominate and/or subjugate you for your own good. After all, we’re the Government, and we know what’s best for you.”

Now, once the Government has disarmed you, criminals will of course still be armed to the teeth with illegal firearms, so they will be able to predate on you (i.e. attack and feed on you) much more easily, since you, the law abiding citizen, won’t have any firearms with which to fight back against them. This works out quite well for the government, who rather than actually caring about what happens to you, just wants to control you, remember? Now that you’re disarmed, they know you will have to run to them and rely on them to “protect you” against all those big, mean and highly-armed criminals, right? So, the Government will respond, at your request, by putting more and more police and security/surveillance cameras on the streets “to protect you” from the baddies (but really to watch and control you), creating more and more of a police state, until you’re living in either your very own version of a George Orwell novel (worst case scenario), or England (best case scenario), the latter becoming more Orwellian with every passing year.

About David Crane

David Crane started publishing online in 2001. Since that time, governments, military organizations, Special Operators (i.e. professional trigger pullers), agencies, and civilian tactical shooters the world over have come to depend on Defense Review as the authoritative source of news and information on "the latest and greatest" in the field of military defense and tactical technology and hardware, including tactical firearms, ammunition, equipment, gear, and training.